Steve Peers

Some Eurosceptics suggest that research should be disregarded if the academics involved or their institutions have received EU funding, especially if that research contradicts Eurosceptic viewpoints. This tactic has been used against both recent research on the positive impacts of free movement of EU citizens and me personally. While it’s tempting to ignore these accusations, they are frequently used to discredit objective evidence supporting pro-European arguments, particularly in the context of a potential referendum on British exit from the EU. It is therefore important to address this line of reasoning. 

**Claims of bias **

The most recent example involves a study on the economic advantages of free movement co-authored by Professor Christian Dustmann of University College London (UCL). Following its publication, Dan Hannan, a Conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP), highlighted on Twitter that UCL received 53 million euros in EU funding in 2013. He implied that he felt compelled to mention this due to “Europhiles” objecting to any discussion of this funding. (It’s worth noting that the study’s co-author, Tommasso Frattini, is an Assistant Professor at the University of Milan).

Last year, I provided testimony at the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee regarding the UK’s proposed opt-out from certain EU policies on policing and criminal law. During my testimony, Mark Reckless, then a Conservative MP who has since joined UKIP, questioned my funding sources. He first inquired about the amount I received directly from EU institutions. I clarified that my primary income source was the University of Essex, with consultancy work for the European Parliament and European Commission constituting approximately 1-2% of my income.

Unsatisfied, Reckless then asked about the total funding the University of Essex received from the EU, encompassing all income sources, not just those directly related to my research. I explained that while I had no direct EU funding for my work, I assumed colleagues at the university had secured some.

Although now in different parties, Hannan and Reckless are close associates. While neither explicitly claimed bias (Reckless could have invoked parliamentary immunity if he had), their questions and statements insinuated that researchers receiving funding directly from the EU or employed by institutions receiving EU funding are inherently biased.

Let’s examine these claims in reverse order.

Is there a pro-EU bias?

Having participated in numerous British parliamentary committees, I’m familiar with the practice of informing witnesses in advance about potential questions. However, in the aforementioned instance, I was not informed about Mark Reckless’ questions. His behavior, particularly as a member of a party claiming to uphold traditional British values, demonstrated neither good manners nor fair play.

The question arises: are institutions receiving EU funding inherently biased, pressuring their staff to produce pro-EU propaganda? Eurosceptics, many of whom also deny climate change, may be inclined to believe so, given the extensive funding received by climate change-denying “scientific institutes” from the oil and gas industry, as highlighted by George Monbiot.

However, universities are required to publish independently audited accounts annually, unlike Nigel Farage. Examining UCL’s figures for context, their total income in 2012-13 was £940 million, with £39 million (4.1%) coming from the EU.

If Reckless genuinely wanted to know about the University of Essex’s EU funding, he could have easily consulted their publicly available annual accounts. His intention, however, was clearly to ambush me. 

Essex’s accounts reveal £2.9 million in EU grants out of a total income of £146 million, representing 2.0% - aligning with my own estimated proportion of income derived from the EU. (It’s important to emphasize that my opinions are my own, independent of my employer or any other entity).

Could this small proportion of a university’s overall income from the EU truly bias research outcomes? While universities undoubtedly value all income sources, any substantiated claim of bias would irrevocably damage the reputation of the institution and individual researchers’ future funding prospects.

In Essex’s case, EU research funding is dwarfed by £20 million from research councils and £9 million from the general research grant, awarded based on the quality of published research. We have far more to lose than gain by compromising research integrity to appease the European Commission. 

My personal experience at the University of Essex further reinforces this point. While encouraged to secure research grants from various sources, including the EU, I have never felt pressured to alter the content of my research to please any funding body.

This brings us to the second point: that individual researchers receiving EU funding harbor a pro-EU bias. Speaking solely for myself, anyone familiar with my work would find the insinuation that I’m beholden to EU institutions laughable. I have publicly criticized EU policies, describing the data retention Directive as a “sell-out foretold” and a recent CJEU judgment as “head-banging.” I’ve been called “one of the Court’s severest critics” by a former Advocate-General of the CJEU and, along with Statewatch director Tony Bunyan, considered one of the Council’s fiercest critics by a former Council official.

My experience over two decades in this field suggests that most specialists in EU law and politics, while broadly pro-European, readily criticize EU institutions when warranted.

Ironically, Reckless’ attempt to expose my supposed bias backfires when considering his current party’s actions. In a desperate bid for EU funding, UKIP has aligned with a Polish party whose leader jokes about violence against women and denies the Holocaust. Even if I were inclined to compromise my integrity for EU funding, it would pale compared to the ethical implications of collaborating with a Holocaust denier for the same purpose.

To paraphrase a well-known saying, those who dishonor the memory of Kristallnacht should not cast stones.